Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr. letter to Henry Cisneros, October 27, 1995

ROBERT L. EHRLICH, JR. BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES Congress of tfje Unites States liouet ot SepreSentatibeg ©Hasfpngton, 2B£ 20515-2002 October 27, 1995 The Honorable Henry G. Cisneros Secretary, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 45 1 Seventh Street, S W Washington, DC 20410 Dear Secretary Cisneros: 12021 225-3061 Thank you for the courtesy of meeting with me on Thursday, October 19, to discuss the proposed partial settlement of the ACLU’s lawsuit against the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the City of Baltimore ( Thompson v. HUD) pending in the U.S. District Court of Maryland. While I continue to strongly object to the consent decree as crafted, I appreciate your willingness to discuss this issue with me. I hope I was successful in conveying to you my deep concern and absolute opposition to this misguided proposal. My initial concern is one of process. Frankly, the covert manner in which the settlement was negotiated is a primary concern of each of the county executives of the surrounding jurisdictions and many of our shared constituents. Following our personal meeting, I was confident you would address our concerns regarding disclosure of the consent decree and the possible adverse impact on the surrounding communities. A week later, I have received only a summary of these terms. Moreover, the attached cover letter requests a final meeting between HUD staff and the county executives of the affected jurisdictions on November 2. I am concerned both by HUD’s failure to disclose the actual proposal and by the department’s apparent attempt to dispose of the agreement in quick fashion without providing the impacted jurisdictions with the time necessary to properly review and comment on the proposal. Elected officials, citizen groups, and concerned central Marylanders are all asking — what is HUD, Baltimore City, and the ACLU hiding from us? The surreptitious manner in which this proposal has been developed has only enhanced opposition to it. I remain most alarmed, however, by the underlying policy objectives of this settlement. The affected subdivisions outside the City should play an active role in negotiating this agreement, but I want to state clearly that I will continue to oppose any settlement resembling the proposed one. This negotiated settlement follows an unsettling pattern. In recent years, a number of localities have been coerced, through judicial order, into establishing “mobility programs” which provide rental assistance with unique counseling to minority families who move from inner cities to outlying communities. I am concerned this Administration is now utilizing Gautreaux- like class action lawsuits as the vehicle for pursuing its social engineering agenda and achieving similar results in cities nationwide. The much-criticized Moving to Opportunity for Fair Housing (MTO) demonstration program, which we have discussed on several occasions, and this proposed settlement are both based on similarly mandated social objectives. The Congress made clear its view of this approach to housing policy last